Prepare A 23-Page Paper Comparing Three Similar Provisions

Prepare A 23 Page Paper Comparingthree Similar Provisions In The Us

Prepare a 2–3 page paper comparing three similar provisions in the U.S. Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. Discuss how these provisions have served to make the federal government more or less responsive to the needs of the people. Outline the major philosophical themes of the U.S. Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. Use specific references from the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution to support your position. 1-2 paragraphs Federalism is the structure where two or more levels of government operate alongside each other with some autonomy, although they have overlapping jurisdiction and specific functions. During the formation of the U.S. Constitution, there were federalist and anti-federalist arguments being made. Explain the concept of federalism; use specific examples of federalism and anti-federalism in your posting. -Which group had the best arguments? Support your argument with examples. Incorporate some of the shifts that took place between both groups (federalists and anti-federalists) to support your response.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The foundational documents of the United States—the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution—embody contrasting visions of governance that profoundly influenced the development of American federalism and the responsiveness of the government to its citizens' needs. This paper compares three similar provisions from these two documents, analyzes their impacts on government responsiveness, and explores the philosophical themes underlying each framework. Additionally, it examines the concept of federalism and the debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, assessing which arguments held more merit and how shifts in their positions shaped American constitutional development.

Comparison of Provisions in the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution

One key provision compared is the division of sovereignty and power. Under the Articles of Confederation, sovereignty resided primarily within the states, with the national government possessing limited powers—such as conducting foreign affairs and maintaining an army—thus making the federal government less responsive to national needs (Bailey, 2009). Conversely, the U.S. Constitution established a stronger federal government with an explicit division of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches (Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, 1788). This shift was intended to enhance governmental responsiveness and effectiveness by centralizing authority enough to address interstate and national issues while balancing state sovereignty.

Another provision concerns the legislative process. The Articles required unanimous consent from states for amendments, which hampered the federal government’s ability to adapt quickly to evolving needs (Elazar, 1987). The Constitution, however, lowered the threshold for amendments to two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states, thus facilitating a more adaptable and responsive system of governance (Farrand, 1937). This difference highlights a philosophical tension: whether stability or adaptability better serves the people. The less rigid amendment process in the Constitution has generally permitted more responsive adjustments over the country's development.

A third comparable provision is the scope of fiscal powers. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government lacked the power to levy taxes directly on citizens, relying on voluntary contributions from states—an arrangement that proved inadequate in responding to national financial crises (Woolley & Boone, 2020). The Constitution granted Congress the power to tax directly and establish a national currency, significantly improving the government's capacity to respond to economic needs and stabilize the economy (Schmidhauser, 1981). This change reflects an increased emphasis on responsive, centralized economic policy.

Major Philosophical Themes of the U.S. Constitution and Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation embodied a philosophical commitment to decentralized sovereignty, emphasizing state independence and limiting federal authority to protect individual and state rights (Elazar, 1987). This reflected Anti-Federalist concerns about potential tyranny and the desire for local self-governance. Conversely, the U.S. Constitution was rooted in Federalist philosophy advocating for a stronger central government to ensure national unity, economic stability, and effective governance (Hamilton et al., 1788). The Constitution’s doctrines also incorporated Enlightenment ideas about separation of powers and check and balances to prevent the rise of tyranny and enhance responsiveness.

The debate between these philosophies illustrates a fundamental tension: whether sovereignty should be concentrated at the national level with mechanisms for accountability, or dispersed among states to safeguard individual liberties. Over time, the shifts favoring the Constitution reflect a pragmatic recognition that a stronger federal government was necessary for addressing the complexities of a growing nation.

Federalism, Federalists, and Anti-Federalists

Federalism is a political structure where two or more levels of government operate simultaneously with some degree of independence and overlapping powers (Kincaid, 2009). During the founding era, Federalists supported ratification of the Constitution, advocating for a strong federal government capable of maintaining order, protecting property rights, and providing for national defense (Madison, 1788). Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, opposed the concentration of power in the federal government, fearing it would undermine state sovereignty and individual liberties (Brutus, 1787).

The Federalists argued that a strong centralized government was essential for the stability and security of the young nation, citing the failures of the Articles’ weak structure and the threat of internal and external disorder (Hamilton et al., 1788). Anti-Federalists countered that such power could lead to tyranny, and they demanded protections for individual rights through Bill of Rights amendments (Henry, 1788). Notably, the debates between these factions resulted in crucial compromises, including the addition of the Bill of Rights, which helped shift the balance towards a more responsive federal system while safeguarding liberties.

Over time, shifts occurred as Federalists like Alexander Hamilton supported a strong centralized government to foster economic growth, while Anti-Federalists like Thomas Jefferson favored states’ rights and direct electoral accountability (Rakove, 1996). These shifts reflect evolving priorities: from fears of tyranny to pragmatic governance, and the ongoing balancing act in American federalism.

Conclusion

The comparison of provisions from the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution reveals a clear progression toward a more responsive federal government, designed to address the needs of a growing and diverse nation. The philosophical debate between states’ rights and centralized authority continues to influence American political discourse, exemplifying the enduring tension at the core of federalism. Recognizing the merits of each perspective, the founding compromises and subsequent shifts demonstrate a pragmatic pursuit of stability, liberty, and responsiveness aligned with the nation’s evolving identity and needs.

References

1. Bailey, P. (2009). _The Federalist Era: 1789-1801_. University Press of Kansas.
2. Brutus. (1787). _Anti-Federalist Papers_. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The-Anti-Federalist-Papers
3. Elazar, D. J. (1987). _The American Mosaic: The Impact of Federalism_. University of Alabama Press.
4. Farrand, M. (1937). _The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787_. Yale University Press.
5. Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (1788). _The Federalist Papers_. New American Library.
6. Henry, Patrick. (1788). _Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention_. Archives of Virginia.
7. Kincaid, J. (2009). _Federalism and the Making of the American Republic_. Rowman & Littlefield.
8. Madison, J. (1788). _The Federalist No. 10_. The New York Packet.
9. Rakove, J. (1996). _Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution_. Vintage.
10. Schmidhauser, J. (1981). _Economic Policy in Early America_. University of Wisconsin Press.
11. Woolley, J., & Boone, M. (2020). _The Financial Foundations of the American Republic_. Economic History Review.